Thursday, January 12, 2012

We've Got Stats, But No Show: Isles Fall Again to Flyers

Flyers 3: Islanders 2

Too little much too late, in the case of the New York Islanders.

Though John Tavares continued his scoring streak with a goal in the final minute, the Isles ultimately ran out of time against the Philadelphia Flyers, a team that has given them fits for years. Kyle Okposo was the only other goalscorer, and Sergei Bobrovsky improved his record to 7-0-0 against New York. Both Isles goals came in the third period.

It was another one of those games in which the Isles dominated the stats, but had no finish. They led in shots 35-22, hits 28-22, and faceoff percentage 52% to 48%. But the differences were big, and they were mainly contained in net.

Evgeni Nabokov, in his quest for 300 wins, did play admirably to begin. The first goal he allowed, a deflection by Scott Hartnell on the man-advantage for Philly, wasn't something he could control- especially when the penalty was questionable. (It was a tripping call on Nabokov himself.) But in the second period, he flubbed a play behind the net and then got caught out of position at the post by Wayne Simmonds, who tucked it between Nabokov's pad and the pipe for the 2-0 lead. After that, with Okposo having scored to cut the lead to 1, it was simply over for him as Sean Couturier wristed one right over his shoulder, capping an end to a frustrating night made only mildly interesting by the Tavares goal shortly after. It's a shame, because he had some brilliant saves to keep the game tight, but Isles fans will certainly only remember the gaffe that led to the Simmonds goal- and it's one he's made in the past.

I don't know what else there is to say. Except all we have to do is move on to Saturday night against Buffalo, a game that I might not even be able to watch, because (surprise!) I live in Buffalo and have Time Warner Cable, and there's no viewing party at First Niagara because of the Bandits' home opener. Sigh. Oh, Time Warner. Why couldn't you and MSG reach a deal again? I don't understand it.

Until next time.

No comments:

Post a Comment